[Stevey]

waldojim, on 12 January 2013 - 10:19 AM, said:

For the sake of asking, are you planning this on an Intel or AMD based machine?

well i have an intel machine, does the processor affect this as well?

[LiveBrianD]

waldojim, on 12 January 2013 - 10:17 AM, said:

ElfBane, on 12 January 2013 - 02:00 AM, said:

waldojim, on 11 January 2013 - 02:36 PM, said:

Ok, I took about 20 seconds to glance through the thread - and first want to comment about Elfbanes response:
IGNORE THAT RUBBISH.

I will defend myself.

I MAINTAIN THAT SETTING UP RAID IS NOT "EASY"!!!

@Stevey

Waldojim is an ubergeek which means that setting up RAID arrays IS "easy",,, for him. For the average PC user it is NOT easy. You will need to be a PC tech (or at least an enthusiast) to accomplish this. You will need to be comfortable opening up and working in the PC case. If you are NOT an experienced PC tech, then this process will be a big learning experience... as you are already finding out.

@Waldojim

Point 1: More HDDs WILL BE MORE expensive. Unless you have "insider" access. Period.
Point 2: Addressed above.
Point 3: More HDDs... more moving parts... higher failure rate. Using SDDs?? More expensive... AT LEAST. Failure rate?? To be determined, since they haven't really been out all that long.

@Stevey

I am unaware of your degree of skill. But I will repeat myself... setting up RAID is not for dilletantes. It can be a useful skill to learn, even if all you learn is that you don't want to do it again.

@Waldojim

Nothing I said was rubbish. Every point I made was/is a legitimate concern. Pleased to meet you ,too.

First, just because you cannot read SIMPLE ONSCREEN directions, doesn't make it hard. It just means you need to learn how to read on screen directions. And before you get smart - that is ALL THAT IS NEEDED to set up raid.
Second, NOT A SINGLE PERSON HERE made any claims to the cost. But I must ask, which is cheaper, an external hard drive for backups, or an internal raid drive? Answer: the INTERNAL DRIVE.
Third: You are wrong, it isn't that simple.Hard drives have about a 4 year life span, AFTER WHICH the failure rates increase rapidly. During the first 4 years, the failure rates are negligible. Don't try to oversimplify when the oversimplification is WRONG. The other issue here, is that you are actually just as likely to have a SINGLE dead drive without raid, the difference being that raid is a 24x7 working backup.

You don't understand RAID and that is obvious. Please move on to a topic you DO understand.

FWIW, the cost of a 2TB external drive is actually about the same (on newegg anyway) as a 2TB internal. And that's comparing it to a "green" internal drive, which you probably don't want slowing down the array.

Also, if you go with an external drive, you don't immediately loose EVERYTHING if malware corrupts the entire machine. (and I once saw a machine where the RAID 1 array failed and everything that wasn't backed up elsewhere was lost...) Not to mention that if you don't plug in the drive when you aren't running backups, it can't get hit with a power surge. (though you do loose the instant backup factor) Personally, I just plug in the drive on a weekly basis to run backups.

This post has been edited by LiveBrianD: 12 January 2013 - 12:39 PM

[waldojim]

ElfBane, on 12 January 2013 - 11:01 AM, said:

I will defend myself again.

First--- There's more here than popping in a CD or clicking an executable file and following directions. You need to be a PC tech or knowledgeable hobbyist.
Second--- Cost is a legitimate concern when doing any IT project.
Third--- I know what RAID is. I also know that more of anything mechanical or electronic means you just have more stuff that can fail.

You like RAID. While I don't think RAID is worth the hassle and expense. It seems we disagree (classic British understatement inserted here) about this. Why don't we leave it at that?

Defending yourself is both futile and irrelevant.

Actually, for most systems there is no CD or executable to click on. You boot the machine, enter the BIOS, turn on RAID functionality, then reboot. When the prompt pops up to enter the raid setup, you do what it tells you to do. Usually, this is either <Ctrl> + <A> OR <Ctrl> + <F>. Then you follow the prompts. Usually something like "Build array" followed by "select type of array" and "select drives to include". If that got any easier, the machine would be reading your mind. The fact that you have problems with this suggests you need a new hobby.

Most of us LEARNED how to do these things by actually USING THEM. Nothing more, nothing less.

Second - COST was still never mentioned because RAID is STILL CHEAPER than the alternatives. Did you miss that part?

Third - OBVIOUSLY you DON'T. Or you wouldn't be spouting off with so many fallacies.

[waldojim]

Stevey, on 12 January 2013 - 12:21 PM, said:

waldojim, on 12 January 2013 - 10:19 AM, said:

For the sake of asking, are you planning this on an Intel or AMD based machine?

well i have an intel machine, does the processor affect this as well?

No, there is a difference between Intel and AMD raid controllers, and the supporting software. Intel has a far superior interface when in Windows. Once Windows is installed, install the Intel Matrix Storage Manager. Remember to do weekly (or at least monthly) health checks on the drives. There is always a chance for bit-level failure, and this will help detect them BEFORE any data loss occurs.

[waldojim]

LiveBrianD, on 12 January 2013 - 12:36 PM, said:

FWIW, the cost of a 2TB external drive is actually about the same (on newegg anyway) as a 2TB internal. And that's comparing it to a "green" internal drive, which you probably don't want slowing down the array.

Also, if you go with an external drive, you don't immediately loose EVERYTHING if malware corrupts the entire machine. (and I once saw a machine where the RAID 1 array failed and everything that wasn't backed up elsewhere was lost...) Not to mention that if you don't plug in the drive when you aren't running backups, it can't get hit with a power surge. (though you do loose the instant backup factor) Personally, I just plug in the drive on a weekly basis to run backups.

Remember that I am running this on MY OWN hardware, and have been for several years now. Even during actual hardware failure. I have not lost ANY data since day one. Malware didn't suddenly just pop in and start erasing everything, viruses didn't wipe the machine, the controller didn't blow up and take everything with it. In other words, You can make up imaginary worst case scenarios for anything: "what if a nuke dropped? I would be dead, but what about my data!?" but in the end, they mean next to nothing when compared to the real world, and realistic outcomes.

[LiveBrianD]

waldojim, on 12 January 2013 - 01:59 PM, said:

LiveBrianD, on 12 January 2013 - 12:36 PM, said:

FWIW, the cost of a 2TB external drive is actually about the same (on newegg anyway) as a 2TB internal. And that's comparing it to a "green" internal drive, which you probably don't want slowing down the array.

Also, if you go with an external drive, you don't immediately loose EVERYTHING if malware corrupts the entire machine. (and I once saw a machine where the RAID 1 array failed and everything that wasn't backed up elsewhere was lost...) Not to mention that if you don't plug in the drive when you aren't running backups, it can't get hit with a power surge. (though you do loose the instant backup factor) Personally, I just plug in the drive on a weekly basis to run backups.

Remember that I am running this on MY OWN hardware, and have been for several years now. Even during actual hardware failure. I have not lost ANY data since day one. Malware didn't suddenly just pop in and start erasing everything, viruses didn't wipe the machine, the controller didn't blow up and take everything with it. In other words, You can make up imaginary worst case scenarios for anything: "what if a nuke dropped? I would be dead, but what about my data!?" but in the end, they mean next to nothing when compared to the real world, and realistic outcomes.

And realistically, as much as you want to deny it, failure is still possible.

[ElfBane]

waldojim, on 12 January 2013 - 01:51 PM, said:

ElfBane, on 12 January 2013 - 11:01 AM, said:

I will defend myself again.

First--- There's more here than popping in a CD or clicking an executable file and following directions. You need to be a PC tech or knowledgeable hobbyist.
Second--- Cost is a legitimate concern when doing any IT project.
Third--- I know what RAID is. I also know that more of anything mechanical or electronic means you just have more stuff that can fail.

You like RAID. While I don't think RAID is worth the hassle and expense. It seems we disagree (classic British understatement inserted here) about this. Why don't we leave it at that?

Defending yourself is both futile and irrelevant.

Actually, for most systems there is no CD or executable to click on. You boot the machine, enter the BIOS, turn on RAID functionality, then reboot. When the prompt pops up to enter the raid setup, you do what it tells you to do. Usually, this is either <Ctrl> + <A> OR <Ctrl> + <F>. Then you follow the prompts. Usually something like "Build array" followed by "select type of array" and "select drives to include". If that got any easier, the machine would be reading your mind. The fact that you have problems with this suggests you need a new hobby.

Most of us LEARNED how to do these things by actually USING THEM. Nothing more, nothing less.

Second - COST was still never mentioned because RAID is STILL CHEAPER than the alternatives. Did you miss that part?

Third - OBVIOUSLY you DON'T. Or you wouldn't be spouting off with so many fallacies.

Defending myself is required.

First--- The process still requires a geek. An office worker can't do this... it requires a tech.
Second--- Cost is always a part of IT projects.
Third--- Then we disagree. I think more stuff to manage... means more stuff to break.

So, are you tired of ragging me?? Or should YOU move along to harrasing teenagers, since you seem to be VERY good at that.

[SnyperTodd]

Alright guys, lets try to stay on topic and avoid personal attacks. Everyone's opinion is as valid as anyone else's here. The replies are getting less and less helpful.

Stevey, should you decide to go with a RAID setup at some point in time, there are plenty of very capable members here who have done it and would be happy to help you get set up.

[waldojim]

LiveBrianD, on 12 January 2013 - 02:59 PM, said:

And realistically, as much as you want to deny it, failure is still possible.

And raid is there to protect against failure. Any device may fail, and I am protected.

[waldojim]

ElfBane, on 12 January 2013 - 06:21 PM, said:

waldojim, on 12 January 2013 - 01:51 PM, said:

ElfBane, on 12 January 2013 - 11:01 AM, said:

I will defend myself again.

First--- There's more here than popping in a CD or clicking an executable file and following directions. You need to be a PC tech or knowledgeable hobbyist.
Second--- Cost is a legitimate concern when doing any IT project.
Third--- I know what RAID is. I also know that more of anything mechanical or electronic means you just have more stuff that can fail.

You like RAID. While I don't think RAID is worth the hassle and expense. It seems we disagree (classic British understatement inserted here) about this. Why don't we leave it at that?

Defending yourself is both futile and irrelevant.

Actually, for most systems there is no CD or executable to click on. You boot the machine, enter the BIOS, turn on RAID functionality, then reboot. When the prompt pops up to enter the raid setup, you do what it tells you to do. Usually, this is either <Ctrl> + <A> OR <Ctrl> + <F>. Then you follow the prompts. Usually something like "Build array" followed by "select type of array" and "select drives to include". If that got any easier, the machine would be reading your mind. The fact that you have problems with this suggests you need a new hobby.

Most of us LEARNED how to do these things by actually USING THEM. Nothing more, nothing less.

Second - COST was still never mentioned because RAID is STILL CHEAPER than the alternatives. Did you miss that part?

Third - OBVIOUSLY you DON'T. Or you wouldn't be spouting off with so many fallacies.

Defending myself is required.

First--- The process still requires a geek. An office worker can't do this... it requires a tech.
Second--- Cost is always a part of IT projects.
Third--- Then we disagree. I think more stuff to manage... means more stuff to break.

So, are you tired of ragging me?? Or should YOU move along to harrasing teenagers, since you seem to be VERY good at that.

1. No it doesn't. It requires basic reading skills.
2. You need a new line.
3. This isn't "more to manage" it is actually less. For 99% of the population out there, backups DO NOT HAPPEN. EVER. I have no clue why... lazy, don't care, etc. It really doesn't matter. But backups require constant user intervention, and requires MORE hardware and has an ADDITIONAL cost (something you decided to complain about for what reason exactly?). RAID requires about 10 minutes of ones time, basic reading skills, and 2 or more similar hard drives. Nothing more, nothing less.

The only thing I am ragging on you about - is your ability to make such a simple process look like you need a PHD. It doesn't. If you don't understand something well enough to be helpful, when people ask for help - THEN DON'T COMMENT.

I see far too many posts from people like you and it is aggravating. Either help or don't post. Making claims that have no basis in reality helps NO ONE.

[LiveBrianD]

waldojim, on 12 January 2013 - 08:18 PM, said:

LiveBrianD, on 12 January 2013 - 02:59 PM, said:

And realistically, as much as you want to deny it, failure is still possible.

And raid is there to protect against failure. Any device may fail, and I am protected.

Yes, but what about the array ITSELF failing? Or, worst case, your surge protector (you have one, right?) doesn't completely stop the surge, it goes through the PSU, and kills the hard drives. It's not likely, but it can happen. Meanwhile, it's awfully hard for my external drive that's not plugged in 99% of the time (since I only plug it in to run weekly backups) to get fried when unplugged.

[LiveBrianD]

waldojim, on 12 January 2013 - 08:24 PM, said:

1. No it doesn't. It requires basic reading skills.
2. You need a new line.
3. This isn't "more to manage" it is actually less. For 99% of the population out there, backups DO NOT HAPPEN. EVER. I have no clue why... lazy, don't care, etc. It really doesn't matter. But backups require constant user intervention, and requires MORE hardware and has an ADDITIONAL cost (something you decided to complain about for what reason exactly?). RAID requires about 10 minutes of ones time, basic reading skills, and 2 or more similar hard drives. Nothing more, nothing less.

The only thing I am ragging on you about - is your ability to make such a simple process look like you need a PHD. It doesn't. If you don't understand something well enough to be helpful, when people ask for help - THEN DON'T COMMENT.

I see far too many posts from people like you and it is aggravating. Either help or don't post. Making claims that have no basis in reality helps NO ONE.

And as I said above, an internal drive for RAID DOESN'T actually cost more than an external drive, according to a quick search on newegg. If you don't want a slow "green" one slowing down your PC, it probably costs more. Keep that in mind...

This post has been edited by LiveBrianD: 12 January 2013 - 08:47 PM

[waldojim]

LiveBrianD, on 12 January 2013 - 08:44 PM, said:

waldojim, on 12 January 2013 - 08:18 PM, said:

LiveBrianD, on 12 January 2013 - 02:59 PM, said:

And realistically, as much as you want to deny it, failure is still possible.

And raid is there to protect against failure. Any device may fail, and I am protected.

Yes, but what about the array ITSELF failing? Or, worst case, your surge protector (you have one, right?) doesn't completely stop the surge, it goes through the PSU, and kills the hard drives. It's not likely, but it can happen. Meanwhile, it's awfully hard for my external drive that's not plugged in 99% of the time (since I only plug it in to run weekly backups) to get fried when unplugged.

Please elaborate. The array itself is not prone to failure. It is nothing more than data across several drives with markers in place to keep track. I run weekly health-checks on the media center and have never even turned up a single bit error, much less anything resembling an "array failure". Is this another magic fairy?

The surge suppressor that can tackle a 6000+ joule surge has protected my media center during its many years of life. I also use premium power supplies with protection included. This is not a cracker-jack box setup. You will need more than a "surge" to kill it. As a surge hasn't killed ANY of my machines EVER, I would say this has more validity than "but it could happen".

You could wake up dead tomorrow, at 15 have you bothered with a will yet?

I have had external drives have actual drive failure rates about 10 times higher than that of my internal drives. I think I will take my chances. EVERY external drive I have ever owned, died in less than 2 years. NONE of my internal drives ever died that fast. This is largely because I use decent power supplies on my internal drives. Power supplies that can be trusted.

[waldojim]

LiveBrianD, on 12 January 2013 - 08:47 PM, said:

waldojim, on 12 January 2013 - 08:24 PM, said:

1. No it doesn't. It requires basic reading skills.
2. You need a new line.
3. This isn't "more to manage" it is actually less. For 99% of the population out there, backups DO NOT HAPPEN. EVER. I have no clue why... lazy, don't care, etc. It really doesn't matter. But backups require constant user intervention, and requires MORE hardware and has an ADDITIONAL cost (something you decided to complain about for what reason exactly?). RAID requires about 10 minutes of ones time, basic reading skills, and 2 or more similar hard drives. Nothing more, nothing less.

The only thing I am ragging on you about - is your ability to make such a simple process look like you need a PHD. It doesn't. If you don't understand something well enough to be helpful, when people ask for help - THEN DON'T COMMENT.

I see far too many posts from people like you and it is aggravating. Either help or don't post. Making claims that have no basis in reality helps NO ONE.

And as I said above, an internal drive for RAID DOESN'T actually cost more than an external drive, according to a quick search on newegg. If you don't want a slow "green" one slowing down your PC, it probably costs more. Keep that in mind...

Actually, they DO cost more. At least, for similar performance they do. Yes, if I went out and hunted down the slowest of the slow internal drives, we might finally make a comparison work. No, the average person isn't going that route. For example, ALL of the My Book collection from WD are 5400RPM drives, and are in no way comparable to the similarly priced WD Blue 7200RPM drives. ANY of the "portable" drives, are using even slower laptop based drives.

So.... what was that about them not costing more? I guess that depends on how you look at it. Raw price VS. getting what you paid for.....

[waldojim]

It is funny, how you guys feel the need to blast ANYONE who wants to use RAID. Rather than help people set it up, you have to make up every excuse you can (no matter how far fetched) to keep people from using a tested method of failure protection.

To the OP, if you have to go elsewhere for people willing to help, I am sorry. You can PM myself, or SnyperTodd (I assume), or possibly even Coastie65 with any questions related to making RAID work for you. All you will get from the forums here, are people like Brian who will make up excuses to avoid RAID, or people like ElfBane who don't understand, and thus are afraid of RAID.

RAID is not a means of preventing failure. RAID is a means of reducing lost time, and lost data when the failure happens. EVERYTHING man-made with fail eventually. RAID just helps keep you going when a drive dies. RAID is effective, and largely self-sustaining. With Intel based boards, RAID is even easy to set up and monitor. There is no reason to avoid it, unless you simply have other options, and don't mind downtime in the event of hardware failure.

EDIT: and a quick note here. If a drive has a typical life span of 5 years, moving to raid doesn't magically change that to 2 years just because there is more than one. 5 years is the typical life of a hard drive. I replace mine after 4 years to prevent any chance of failure in my own systems. Even the media center. One day, I might even get around to upgrading the media center array....

This post has been edited by waldojim: 12 January 2013 - 10:32 PM

[Stevey]

sure folks thanks...

[LiveBrianD]

waldojim, on 12 January 2013 - 09:48 PM, said:

LiveBrianD, on 12 January 2013 - 08:44 PM, said:

waldojim, on 12 January 2013 - 08:18 PM, said:

LiveBrianD, on 12 January 2013 - 02:59 PM, said:

And realistically, as much as you want to deny it, failure is still possible.

And raid is there to protect against failure. Any device may fail, and I am protected.

Yes, but what about the array ITSELF failing? Or, worst case, your surge protector (you have one, right?) doesn't completely stop the surge, it goes through the PSU, and kills the hard drives. It's not likely, but it can happen. Meanwhile, it's awfully hard for my external drive that's not plugged in 99% of the time (since I only plug it in to run weekly backups) to get fried when unplugged.

Please elaborate. The array itself is not prone to failure. It is nothing more than data across several drives with markers in place to keep track. I run weekly health-checks on the media center and have never even turned up a single bit error, much less anything resembling an "array failure". Is this another magic fairy?

The surge suppressor that can tackle a 6000+ joule surge has protected my media center during its many years of life. I also use premium power supplies with protection included. This is not a cracker-jack box setup. You will need more than a "surge" to kill it. As a surge hasn't killed ANY of my machines EVER, I would say this has more validity than "but it could happen".

You could wake up dead tomorrow, at 15 have you bothered with a will yet?

I have had external drives have actual drive failure rates about 10 times higher than that of my internal drives. I think I will take my chances. EVERY external drive I have ever owned, died in less than 2 years. NONE of my internal drives ever died that fast. This is largely because I use decent power supplies on my internal drives. Power supplies that can be trusted.

Typo - meant the decent internals cost more.

Also, I have a 2.5 year old WD Elements 2TB under my desk, and it's not showing any signs of failure. (I did have a Lacie NAS that failed though.)

And by your logic, if you've never lost data due to a drive crash, why back up, right? It'll never happen to you. /s Or, maybe you run into a hacked website, get malware, and things ate erased? (you don't use av, right? Not saying that'll catch everything, but it helps.) Or, your power supply dies and fries things - even with a quality unit, it can happen. I'm not saying RAID is bad, but there is no way in hell I am trusting that as my only form of backup. Not mention that it is dependent on the RAID controller, which isn't always interchangeable while keeping your data.

This post has been edited by LiveBrianD: 13 January 2013 - 08:36 AM

[SnyperTodd]

Stevey, WJ is right, you can PM any of the members he listed and we would be glad to help you. I would guess Rommel would be willing to help you too, I know he has an SSD RAID array in at least one of his machines.

Brian, you're grasping at straws trying to prove some point, although I'm not sure what you're getting at. Never did WJ say anything about not having a backup in addition to his RAID arrays. To take that one step further, WJ knows the importance of off-site backup as well, which he's talked about before.
As an example of a RAID array not replacing backups, I had a backup of everything important on all of my machines. They backed up to a headless server in my attic. The problem is that when my house burned in July 2010, I nearly lost all of my machines, which included my redundant backups. I now back up not only to my own server, but also to my mom & dad's server across town.

WJ, you've given great advice from firsthand experience throughout this thread, and the vast majority of us appreciate your willingness to help and answer questions.

[LiveBrianD]

As I recall, he did say he uses RAID as his only backup a while ago - which is exactly what I think is a dangerous idea.

[Rommel]

SnyperTodd, on 13 January 2013 - 09:01 AM, said:

Stevey, WJ is right, you can PM any of the members he listed and we would be glad to help you. I would guess Rommel would be willing to help you too, I know he has an SSD RAID array in at least one of his machines.

Brian, you're grasping at straws trying to prove some point, although I'm not sure what you're getting at. Never did WJ say anything about not having a backup in addition to his RAID arrays. To take that one step further, WJ knows the importance of off-site backup as well, which he's talked about before.
As an example of a RAID array not replacing backups, I had a backup of everything important on all of my machines. They backed up to a headless server in my attic. The problem is that when my house burned in July 2010, I nearly lost all of my machines, which included my redundant backups. I now back up not only to my own server, but also to my mom & dad's server across town.

WJ, you've given great advice from firsthand experience throughout this thread, and the vast majority of us appreciate your willingness to help and answer questions.

Thank you and yes I am willing to help.
I've setup quite a few RAID configs though only in 0 or 1.
Until technology changes, I will never build a personal pc without using RAID 0 because a greed for performance and once you build your first array, the mystery to do it is gone and is not an issue to do again.

Why not enjoy a bench like this?
http://i18.photobuck...ATTO1sttest.png

As mentioned earlier. Regardless of setup, backup.
I'll admit my first RAID setup took a lot of time.
I was nervous about it because it was new and the terminology was new.
Now, no big deal.

Snypertodd and WJ are right, you have plenty of help here.